12 ms·

Google Confirms Plan to Offer Wireless Service

262 points by uptown 12y ago

ocdtrekkie 12y ago
Now you can have your entire digital life entirely routed through Google. What could possibly go wrong with that?
- jarin 12y ago
  In a way, it might be better to have all your stuff going through one provider you trust than through several providers of varying trustworthiness. I'm not making any assertions about Google's trustworthiness, but they have taken steps to encrypt your information going between data centers in order to prevent NSA snooping.
  - ksk 12y ago
    > it might be better to have all your stuff going through one provider you trust than through several providers of varying trustworthiness. On the other hand, it only takes one subpoena to get everything about you. >but they have taken steps to encrypt your information going between data centers in order to prevent NSA snooping. True, but that doesn't help if someone is worried about Google's snooping?
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      Indeed. This is an "all your eggs in one basket" issue. Google's cloud is the most dangerous thing in the world, because it's the most tempting target in the world. All of the data about practically everyone in one place.
      - Legion 12y ago
        > This is an "all your eggs in one basket" issue. And that's an incredibly valid concern, but at the same time, when you look at the other baskets and they're falling apart and have holes in the bottom, it's easy to see why people put those eggs where they do.
        ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        I trust the inevitability that Google's basket will eventually have the same fate. And it will be much much worse than anything we have seen so far.
        spacemanmatt 12y ago
        Perhaps, but show me a better basket today.
        ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Again. Multiple baskets will always be smarter than a single basket with everything in it.
        fpgeek 12y ago
        Always? Really? So a bunch open, unprotected baskets in plain view are better than a single closed, locked and hidden basket? I'm glad you're not in charge of my security. As others have said, the single-basket concern is perfectly valid. The reason you're getting pushback because you have a single-minded focus on that one concern and vehemently deny the possibility that there might be tradeoffs. That comes across as an irrational attachment to a single issue, even if what you're really trying to say is that your assessment that enough other baskets have hit a good-enough baseline that diversification is a good strategy. The latter is something you could have a productive conversation about. As for the former, you can insist that multiple baskets are the only thing that matter until you're blue in the face, but I doubt you will convince anyone.
        ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Hey look, sure enough the "How dare you criticize Google?" downvoters are in full force. :)
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      The substantive difference is what, though? A lawyer has to charge another billable hour to hit your other 5 providers? To the kind of adversary you're worried about, those resources are nothing.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        If all those providers are not in the same jurisdiction it might actually be quite a tall barrier.
        Karunamon 12y ago
        Not if they want you bad enough. Examples: Assange, Dotcom. And that's assuming perfectly legal might is all you're worrying about...
      - ksk 12y ago
        >A lawyer has to charge another billable hour to hit your other 5 providers? Sure but first, they would have to actually find out who those providers are. Without a central service like Google tracking everything you do online, it would be extremely hard to link 5 different email accounts to one person and then to forum user MMARules22 who has been posting on an anti-GMO forum. Google also makes it easier for people to subpoena private information in a lawsuit and then leak potentially embarrassing items to the media.
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      Once we're talking subpoenas, the game is kind of up. At that point we're talking about how to most effectively flee the law.
      - ksk 12y ago
        Well, subpoenas are issued prior to someone being judged guilty. And, I don't know if you agree, but "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" is a very poor justification for any kind of invasion of privacy. As I'm sure people are aware :- 1. Google DNS tracks all domain queries 2. Chrome basically key logs everything you type into the search bar. 3. Android tracks calls, messages, IMs, emails.. 4. Google Fiber has the potential to track even more content If there were lets say 20 different services, there would be NO way to connect email account foo@email.com with a forum posting from member RedSpike93 to a search for "escorts in miami". Google engineers have already been fired for stalking teens, accessing private info, etc. Heck, its kind of unbelievable that not too long ago, Netscape was sued for "only" tracking what users downloaded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communications_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communicatio....
        sliverstorm 12y ago
        Are you trying to justify evading a subpoena? "I haven't been judged guilty yet, so the courts have no right to gather evidence"
        ksk 12y ago
        You can't evade a subpoena. A recipient could contest it, though. >"I haven't been judged guilty yet, so the courts have no right to gather evidence" You can only know that the requested information is evidence of something when you actually receive it. That is a very high bar. However, anything can be subpoenaed as long as it has some vague notion of relevance. Under that less-stricter criteria, a general "electronic communication" subpoena sent to Google includes a much larger set of data, most of which, is useless, but might contain embarrassing information that could be leaked to the media to smear someone.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
      If only it took a subpoena. Aren't the likes of Verizon and AT&T giving it up for free?
- alyandon 12y ago
  If something like that bothers you that much, you can do what I do and route your web traffic through a cheap VPS. I don't really do it because I'm super paranoid or because I'm attempting to hide illicit activity. I just don't believe it is any of my ISP's business what web sites I visit should they decide to derive additional "value" (for them) by data mining. If and when they want to offer to pay me in the form of a substantial service price discount for access to my web history I might reconsider but there is no way I'm giving them that information for free.
  - mindslight 12y ago
    > and when they want to offer to pay me in the form of a substantial service price discount for access to my web history I might reconsider Why? It's not like they actually know whether your 80/443 traffic is real browsing or just chaff. One's best bet is to let them datamine the hell out of you for a discount (since they, NSA, and everyone in between is going to do any anyway), and then spend some of that savings on a VPN provider to route your insecure protocols over (as you're already doing, which is why I'm making this point). I'm looking forward to services that charge less to inspect traffic harder, because I'm hoping it'll making your average person realize that their privacy is worth more than eg $30/mo, and that it can be better protected for $5/mo to a third party. Discounts for traffic inspection is a nice tip of the iceberg for us - some practice upfront totalitarianism that will hopefully inspire development, testing, and adoption of protocols that are truly opaque to the network.
    - alyandon 12y ago
      Unfortunately, your average non-technical person probably won't understand the privacy implications of an ISP offering a service discount in exchange for the ability to provide them with "relevant" and/or "targeted" advertising (typical weasel words used to avoid plainly stating your ISP is spying on you).
      - mindslight 12y ago
        I think there's a better chance to realize they're giving something up if they're saving money by doing so. Then again maybe I'm just being too optimistic on this point (hey, I need at least one).
- ourmandave 12y ago
  Maybe it will get rid of those annoying pop-ups constantly asking you to turn on tracking. If you sign up for their wireless service they can write in the Terms of Endearment that you auto accept them vacuuming up all your on-line activity.
untog 12y ago
The important quote: The service would be small in scale and not intended to compete with the big four national carriers, Sundar Pichai, who oversees Google’s mobile operating system Android, said in a presentation at an industry conference in Barcelona. Though maybe it should read "small in scale, for now", because unless they intend to scale it I'm not sure what use it would provide consumers. I'm on the fence about whether I'd ever sign up for this, but it barely matters - the point is that it'll bring competition to the big four, much like Google Fiber has done.
- dangerlibrary 12y ago
  Could be self-driving car infrastructure.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- logn 12y ago
  They originally said Fiber was "to experiment and learn". They're just doing some Sun Tzu strategy.
  - free2rhyme214 12y ago
    Exactly. When there's money why not scale their service?
    - untog 12y ago
      Because scaling would be phenomenally expensive.
      - yeukhon 12y ago
        To be exact, I am surprised they were able to make deal with cities where Fiber has launched given telecom franchise basically is a in-or-out. I guess they are Google they have plenty of resource at disposal.
julianpye 12y ago
What makes most sense in this space is for Google to build a global MVNO for M2M communication. This would allow them to create a network for devices without roaming restrictions and fully leverage IPV6 without legacy considerations. Right now M2M traffic on GPRS/UMTS legacy networks using IPV4 is a total pain to manage for the carriers and results in poor user experience.
chronomex 12y ago
I can't read this article. Is there a non-paywalled source?
- iamdanfox 12y ago
  It seems you can bypass the WSJ paywall by Googling the article name: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Google+confirms+plans+to+offer+wireless+service+site:wsj.com https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Google+confirms+plans+to+o...
- starnixgod 12y ago
  https://gigaom.com/2015/03/02/googles-mvno-is-launching-in-the-coming-months-sundar-pichai/ https://gigaom.com/2015/03/02/googles-mvno-is-launching-in-t...
billions 12y ago
It would be an MVNO. Maybe they plan to subsidize some of the line cost through advertising. Google could potentially have access to all network traffic for better ad targeting. As a side benefit, they could gain insights into iPhone usage behaviors.
- eli 12y ago
  If the long term goal is to actually roll out their own network (and I don't know if that's true), launching as an MVNO would be the obvious next step towards that.
- bluedino 12y ago
  In my experience, MVNO's have worse service despite being on the same network as the big providers. Especially when it comes to data. Isn't Google worried about that hurting user experience?
  - jedberg 12y ago
    When has google ever cared about the user experience? Edit: I find it interesting that this comment got all the way to at least +5 and has now descended to -2 as I edit it. Apparently what I said was more polarizing than I thought -- I honestly thought it was something that everyone agreed with.
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      If you criticize Google here, you will get downvoted into oblivion as soon as the fanboys find your comment.
  - dd36 12y ago
    Have you tried Consumer Cellular?
  - abruzzi 12y ago
    The biggest problem with MVNOs is that they generally only get access to lessor company's towers, and not to any roaming agreements the lessor used to augment their coverage. The most obvious example is Sprint users have coverage in Montana despite Sprint having no towers in Montana (at least a year ago when I was carrier shopping.). But if you were on Virgin Mobile who are a Sprint MVNO, you got basically zero coverage in the state.
3327 12y ago
Thank god. This is a real problem, because the scum known as At&t and verizon have abused and locked in this market for too long. I honestly hope these companies go to 0 and all of their shareholders get punished for investing in such innovation blocking companies.
shockzzz 12y ago
I hate it when people post HN articles behind a paywall. It feels oddly familiar of Borat's catchphrase, "You will never get this! You will never get this!"
- ohitsdom 12y ago
  Just google the article title and click through from the search results. Annoying but it works.
  - shockzzz 12y ago
    How do websites actually implement that?
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      They can see what the inbound referrer is to their page.
    - thrillgore 12y ago
      I don't know how WSJ does, but Press+, a vendor used by many local newspapers uses Local Storage to assign a GUID, and then they track the GUID. It's easily defeated.
    - ripdog 12y ago
      Checking the referrer header.
      - shockzzz 12y ago
        Right, forgot about that. I wish something like this was rolled into AdBlock, but it'd be nice for viewing NYT and WSJ: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hn...
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
ggonweb 12y ago
Techcrunch thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9131700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9131700
thrillgore 12y ago
For a while there, Larry Page was cutting a lot of Google services. Now, we're getting much more bloat. Has sensibility run out at Google?
- zarriak 12y ago
  They realize that they have to do this, like they did with Google Fiber to "disrupt". Android, and in turn Google rely heavily upon Wireless Carriers. There was a much larger threat present in the net neutrality fight, but there are still lots of problems present in getting a cell phone. The new services are not bloat, but very important steps for Google to take. Just as a startup has to go acquire customers face to face and ask them what they can improve upon, Google has to experience being the customer facing company. Currently, they don't handle or deal with the most important point of the mobile phone sales process. They can't know what problems they can fix or have made for the carriers by having to perform those tasks. It really is quality control for the experience of Android. Most importantly, Google can provide what no other (to my knowledge) carrier can offer, the ability to have OTA updates as soon as the device manufacturer completes their modifications. This allows Google to push other carriers to reduce/minimize bloatware and to see the cycle from Google to Manufacturer to Carrier to Customer. Google made the Nexus line of products to be the flagship of Android, and now can provide the flagship of carrier experiences.
  - username223 12y ago
    > They realize that they have to do this, like they did with Google Fiber to "disrupt". If I'm reading this correctly, and they're just becoming an MVNO, then they don't have to create any infrastructure (unlike Fiber). In exchange, they get two things: more robust tracking, and a chance to try to siphon off a few of the most profitable customers from the major carriers. Fiber gets them these things as well -- I'm guessing they only roll it out to high-margin areas -- but requires more investment. I assume that, if this becomes profitable later, they can use Fiber in areas that have it to save money.
  - Bahamut 12y ago
    In addition, if they decide to ever scale it nationally, they could become a big player in affecting the Android experience. For example, currently most Android phones come with a lot of bloat. If Google decides to mandate phones contain minimal bloat (just Google apps preinstalled), it could potentially force other carriers to follow suit, making Android phones more competitive with the iPhone.
minthd 12y ago
I think the basic idea here ,is for google to learn about the wireless industry from the inside out, and to start create the basics(brand, customer support,etc) needed for a big business in this field. That together with other technical innovations google is talking about could, in a later stage let google offer an attractive service - or push the carriers to do so, and thus lower wireless costs. As for what those technical stuff , few possible ideas: 1. A wifi bandwidth exchange, that could let wifi access point owners compete and charge for bandwidth, and that including monitoring and quality assuarance for customers. 2. Offering small business a wifi access point that includes some marketing incentives and free software(maybe POS, etc) in order to entice them to provide wifi bandwidth. 3. There are few companies offering wifi based backhauls at speeds of 300-1000 mbit/sec which could solve the access issues of those wifi access point providers. An alternative technology for this would be 60ghz smart antenna - and google bought alpental technologies, a startup that does this sort of thing. 4. Let phones support dynamic roaming based on price and quality. 5. I think in certain areas - like rural areas, google loon can play an important part. 6. Maybe with those changes, google can achieve a low enough bandwidth costs , that it could offer a basic plan for free - which will solve the marketing problem and subsidize with ads and selling extra bandwidth. But i'm leaning less towards the free plan, because google is interested in mobile video catching on.
- benologist 12y ago
  Your first point hinges on using existing infrastructure which even within the US is a questionable situation. Being at the mercy of the infrastructure, where it exists at all, greatly limits the value they can create - a project on Kickstarter could achieve the same result. I'm skeptical about your second point too as many businesses can afford internet connections, especially if there are any advantages to be had sharing them publicly. Your final point, it is hard to imagine google caring to offer western audiences free internet. This is a very incremental benefit to a modern country, something like 87% of the USA [1] may already be online. I think this is practice for doing it globally where internet can be very niche. [1] http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm
  - deleted 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
wtallis 12y ago
If Google really wants to become a MVNO, then I don't understand why they haven't bought Republic Wireless yet. They had a chance at becoming the most vertically integrated carrier when they owned Motorola Mobility, and they've already got a relationship with Republic's parent company providing the back-end for Google Voice.
- taeric 12y ago
  I will add to this that Republic Wireless has been a mostly awesome experience. I am not even convinced the bad points have been their fault. Just some times when the bloody phone will not actually make a call for me. (I should note I log a ridiculously low number of hours on voice calls.)
- ohsnap 12y ago
  Google is more interested in solving the bandwidth cap problem. They want to deploy high speed municipal wifi to solve this. Unlike Republic, they are not looking to cut your monthly bill - Google wants people to consume more data, not less. Republic is more focused on cutting costs by providing a more efficient (but basic) service... which is a very different business.
  - wtallis 12y ago
    There's still a ton of overlap in using WiFi to work around the limitations of cellular. Google won't want their customers using large amounts of cellular data any more than Republic does, because they'll have to face the same cost structure as a MVNO. Google's got a lot more money to throw around than Republic, but they're not going to spend it on subsidizing cellular data costs. They're going to use it on making WiFi offloading more broadly available, and thus they'll be every bit as focused on offloading as Republic. (And Google's in a great position to make sure that the WiFi that gets deployed actually works well enough to reliably support VoIP, which has been the biggest problem Republic faces.)
    - ohsnap 12y ago
      Yup huge technology overlap in offloading but I don't think Google really needs Republic's help there. But your right both are focused on making offloading as reliable and seamless as possible. Personally I think an independent Republic is the most interesting business because they have a lot of room to really drive prices down, something they couldn't do within Google.
jtwebman 12y ago
They are doing this so they can also be a telco company and then the phone companies have to allow them to use there polls to lay fiber, etc...
jt2190 12y ago
Not really the first thing I think of when I read "wireless service." From TFA: > The service would be small-scale and not intended to > compete with the big four national carriers... > Instead, it would be intended to demonstrate technical > innovations that the carriers could adopt.
- lvs 12y ago
  I suspect the idea might be to merge (and gang) service from multiple carriers and 802.11 more seamlessly than GSM "roaming" and current internet calling implementations, making use of the many available bands in modern radios.
AndrewDucker 12y ago
I strongly suspect that this is more about Google showing that "Better is possible." If people can look at a few places and see that it's possible to have affordable wireless service that makes a profit, then it might kick more municipal providers into delivering the service, and provide more competition for the big boys.
_RPM 12y ago
They're probably going to record and store all of the conversations that happen over their network.
inthewoods 12y ago
Maybe they're a buyer for T-Mobile or Sprint? Unlikely, yes.
- strange_quark 12y ago
  T-Mobile, maybe, but I doubt Google actually wants to be a wireless carrier. Sprint already has Softbank to bankroll them.
click170 12y ago
I like the idea of another wireless competitor but speaking only for myself, Ill be avoiding it just as much as I avoid Google search and gmail. I value my privacy and Google has built their business model around depriving me of it.
steven2012 12y ago
I hope no one is surprised by this. Once they started with Android, it was glaringly obvious that their eventual goal was to offer free mobile phone service with ads service.

262 points by uptown 12y ago

ocdtrekkie 12y ago

Now you can have your entire digital life entirely routed through Google. What could possibly go wrong with that?

jarin 12y ago
In a way, it might be better to have all your stuff going through one provider you trust than through several providers of varying trustworthiness. I'm not making any assertions about Google's trustworthiness, but they have taken steps to encrypt your information going between data centers in order to prevent NSA snooping.
- ksk 12y ago
  > it might be better to have all your stuff going through one provider you trust than through several providers of varying trustworthiness. On the other hand, it only takes one subpoena to get everything about you. >but they have taken steps to encrypt your information going between data centers in order to prevent NSA snooping. True, but that doesn't help if someone is worried about Google's snooping?
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    Indeed. This is an "all your eggs in one basket" issue. Google's cloud is the most dangerous thing in the world, because it's the most tempting target in the world. All of the data about practically everyone in one place.
    - Legion 12y ago
      > This is an "all your eggs in one basket" issue. And that's an incredibly valid concern, but at the same time, when you look at the other baskets and they're falling apart and have holes in the bottom, it's easy to see why people put those eggs where they do.
      - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        I trust the inevitability that Google's basket will eventually have the same fate. And it will be much much worse than anything we have seen so far.
        spacemanmatt 12y ago
        Perhaps, but show me a better basket today.
        ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Again. Multiple baskets will always be smarter than a single basket with everything in it.
        fpgeek 12y ago
        Always? Really? So a bunch open, unprotected baskets in plain view are better than a single closed, locked and hidden basket? I'm glad you're not in charge of my security. As others have said, the single-basket concern is perfectly valid. The reason you're getting pushback because you have a single-minded focus on that one concern and vehemently deny the possibility that there might be tradeoffs. That comes across as an irrational attachment to a single issue, even if what you're really trying to say is that your assessment that enough other baskets have hit a good-enough baseline that diversification is a good strategy. The latter is something you could have a productive conversation about. As for the former, you can insist that multiple baskets are the only thing that matter until you're blue in the face, but I doubt you will convince anyone.
        ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Hey look, sure enough the "How dare you criticize Google?" downvoters are in full force. :)
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    The substantive difference is what, though? A lawyer has to charge another billable hour to hit your other 5 providers? To the kind of adversary you're worried about, those resources are nothing.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      If all those providers are not in the same jurisdiction it might actually be quite a tall barrier.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        Not if they want you bad enough. Examples: Assange, Dotcom. And that's assuming perfectly legal might is all you're worrying about...
    - ksk 12y ago
      >A lawyer has to charge another billable hour to hit your other 5 providers? Sure but first, they would have to actually find out who those providers are. Without a central service like Google tracking everything you do online, it would be extremely hard to link 5 different email accounts to one person and then to forum user MMARules22 who has been posting on an anti-GMO forum. Google also makes it easier for people to subpoena private information in a lawsuit and then leak potentially embarrassing items to the media.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Once we're talking subpoenas, the game is kind of up. At that point we're talking about how to most effectively flee the law.
    - ksk 12y ago
      Well, subpoenas are issued prior to someone being judged guilty. And, I don't know if you agree, but "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" is a very poor justification for any kind of invasion of privacy. As I'm sure people are aware :- 1. Google DNS tracks all domain queries 2. Chrome basically key logs everything you type into the search bar. 3. Android tracks calls, messages, IMs, emails.. 4. Google Fiber has the potential to track even more content If there were lets say 20 different services, there would be NO way to connect email account foo@email.com with a forum posting from member RedSpike93 to a search for "escorts in miami". Google engineers have already been fired for stalking teens, accessing private info, etc. Heck, its kind of unbelievable that not too long ago, Netscape was sued for "only" tracking what users downloaded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communications_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communicatio....
      - sliverstorm 12y ago
        Are you trying to justify evading a subpoena? "I haven't been judged guilty yet, so the courts have no right to gather evidence"
        ksk 12y ago
        You can't evade a subpoena. A recipient could contest it, though. >"I haven't been judged guilty yet, so the courts have no right to gather evidence" You can only know that the requested information is evidence of something when you actually receive it. That is a very high bar. However, anything can be subpoenaed as long as it has some vague notion of relevance. Under that less-stricter criteria, a general "electronic communication" subpoena sent to Google includes a much larger set of data, most of which, is useless, but might contain embarrassing information that could be leaked to the media to smear someone.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    If only it took a subpoena. Aren't the likes of Verizon and AT&T giving it up for free?
alyandon 12y ago
If something like that bothers you that much, you can do what I do and route your web traffic through a cheap VPS. I don't really do it because I'm super paranoid or because I'm attempting to hide illicit activity. I just don't believe it is any of my ISP's business what web sites I visit should they decide to derive additional "value" (for them) by data mining. If and when they want to offer to pay me in the form of a substantial service price discount for access to my web history I might reconsider but there is no way I'm giving them that information for free.
- mindslight 12y ago
  > and when they want to offer to pay me in the form of a substantial service price discount for access to my web history I might reconsider Why? It's not like they actually know whether your 80/443 traffic is real browsing or just chaff. One's best bet is to let them datamine the hell out of you for a discount (since they, NSA, and everyone in between is going to do any anyway), and then spend some of that savings on a VPN provider to route your insecure protocols over (as you're already doing, which is why I'm making this point). I'm looking forward to services that charge less to inspect traffic harder, because I'm hoping it'll making your average person realize that their privacy is worth more than eg $30/mo, and that it can be better protected for $5/mo to a third party. Discounts for traffic inspection is a nice tip of the iceberg for us - some practice upfront totalitarianism that will hopefully inspire development, testing, and adoption of protocols that are truly opaque to the network.
  - alyandon 12y ago
    Unfortunately, your average non-technical person probably won't understand the privacy implications of an ISP offering a service discount in exchange for the ability to provide them with "relevant" and/or "targeted" advertising (typical weasel words used to avoid plainly stating your ISP is spying on you).
    - mindslight 12y ago
      I think there's a better chance to realize they're giving something up if they're saving money by doing so. Then again maybe I'm just being too optimistic on this point (hey, I need at least one).
ourmandave 12y ago
Maybe it will get rid of those annoying pop-ups constantly asking you to turn on tracking. If you sign up for their wireless service they can write in the Terms of Endearment that you auto accept them vacuuming up all your on-line activity.

untog 12y ago

The important quote: The service would be small in scale and not intended to compete with the big four national carriers, Sundar Pichai, who oversees Google’s mobile operating system Android, said in a presentation at an industry conference in Barcelona. Though maybe it should read "small in scale, for now", because unless they intend to scale it I'm not sure what use it would provide consumers. I'm on the fence about whether I'd ever sign up for this, but it barely matters - the point is that it'll bring competition to the big four, much like Google Fiber has done.

dangerlibrary 12y ago
Could be self-driving car infrastructure.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
logn 12y ago
They originally said Fiber was "to experiment and learn". They're just doing some Sun Tzu strategy.
- free2rhyme214 12y ago
  Exactly. When there's money why not scale their service?
  - untog 12y ago
    Because scaling would be phenomenally expensive.
    - yeukhon 12y ago
      To be exact, I am surprised they were able to make deal with cities where Fiber has launched given telecom franchise basically is a in-or-out. I guess they are Google they have plenty of resource at disposal.

julianpye 12y ago

What makes most sense in this space is for Google to build a global MVNO for M2M communication. This would allow them to create a network for devices without roaming restrictions and fully leverage IPV6 without legacy considerations. Right now M2M traffic on GPRS/UMTS legacy networks using IPV4 is a total pain to manage for the carriers and results in poor user experience.

chronomex 12y ago

I can't read this article. Is there a non-paywalled source?

iamdanfox 12y ago
It seems you can bypass the WSJ paywall by Googling the article name: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Google+confirms+plans+to+offer+wireless+service+site:wsj.com https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Google+confirms+plans+to+o...
starnixgod 12y ago
https://gigaom.com/2015/03/02/googles-mvno-is-launching-in-the-coming-months-sundar-pichai/ https://gigaom.com/2015/03/02/googles-mvno-is-launching-in-t...

billions 12y ago

It would be an MVNO. Maybe they plan to subsidize some of the line cost through advertising. Google could potentially have access to all network traffic for better ad targeting. As a side benefit, they could gain insights into iPhone usage behaviors.

eli 12y ago
If the long term goal is to actually roll out their own network (and I don't know if that's true), launching as an MVNO would be the obvious next step towards that.
bluedino 12y ago
In my experience, MVNO's have worse service despite being on the same network as the big providers. Especially when it comes to data. Isn't Google worried about that hurting user experience?
- jedberg 12y ago
  When has google ever cared about the user experience? Edit: I find it interesting that this comment got all the way to at least +5 and has now descended to -2 as I edit it. Apparently what I said was more polarizing than I thought -- I honestly thought it was something that everyone agreed with.
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    If you criticize Google here, you will get downvoted into oblivion as soon as the fanboys find your comment.
- dd36 12y ago
  Have you tried Consumer Cellular?
- abruzzi 12y ago
  The biggest problem with MVNOs is that they generally only get access to lessor company's towers, and not to any roaming agreements the lessor used to augment their coverage. The most obvious example is Sprint users have coverage in Montana despite Sprint having no towers in Montana (at least a year ago when I was carrier shopping.). But if you were on Virgin Mobile who are a Sprint MVNO, you got basically zero coverage in the state.

3327 12y ago

Thank god. This is a real problem, because the scum known as At&t and verizon have abused and locked in this market for too long. I honestly hope these companies go to 0 and all of their shareholders get punished for investing in such innovation blocking companies.

shockzzz 12y ago

I hate it when people post HN articles behind a paywall. It feels oddly familiar of Borat's catchphrase, "You will never get this! You will never get this!"

ohitsdom 12y ago
Just google the article title and click through from the search results. Annoying but it works.
- shockzzz 12y ago
  How do websites actually implement that?
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    They can see what the inbound referrer is to their page.
  - thrillgore 12y ago
    I don't know how WSJ does, but Press+, a vendor used by many local newspapers uses Local Storage to assign a GUID, and then they track the GUID. It's easily defeated.
  - ripdog 12y ago
    Checking the referrer header.
    - shockzzz 12y ago
      Right, forgot about that. I wish something like this was rolled into AdBlock, but it'd be nice for viewing NYT and WSJ: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hn...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

ggonweb 12y ago

Techcrunch thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9131700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9131700

thrillgore 12y ago

For a while there, Larry Page was cutting a lot of Google services. Now, we're getting much more bloat. Has sensibility run out at Google?

zarriak 12y ago
They realize that they have to do this, like they did with Google Fiber to "disrupt". Android, and in turn Google rely heavily upon Wireless Carriers. There was a much larger threat present in the net neutrality fight, but there are still lots of problems present in getting a cell phone. The new services are not bloat, but very important steps for Google to take. Just as a startup has to go acquire customers face to face and ask them what they can improve upon, Google has to experience being the customer facing company. Currently, they don't handle or deal with the most important point of the mobile phone sales process. They can't know what problems they can fix or have made for the carriers by having to perform those tasks. It really is quality control for the experience of Android. Most importantly, Google can provide what no other (to my knowledge) carrier can offer, the ability to have OTA updates as soon as the device manufacturer completes their modifications. This allows Google to push other carriers to reduce/minimize bloatware and to see the cycle from Google to Manufacturer to Carrier to Customer. Google made the Nexus line of products to be the flagship of Android, and now can provide the flagship of carrier experiences.
- username223 12y ago
  > They realize that they have to do this, like they did with Google Fiber to "disrupt". If I'm reading this correctly, and they're just becoming an MVNO, then they don't have to create any infrastructure (unlike Fiber). In exchange, they get two things: more robust tracking, and a chance to try to siphon off a few of the most profitable customers from the major carriers. Fiber gets them these things as well -- I'm guessing they only roll it out to high-margin areas -- but requires more investment. I assume that, if this becomes profitable later, they can use Fiber in areas that have it to save money.
- Bahamut 12y ago
  In addition, if they decide to ever scale it nationally, they could become a big player in affecting the Android experience. For example, currently most Android phones come with a lot of bloat. If Google decides to mandate phones contain minimal bloat (just Google apps preinstalled), it could potentially force other carriers to follow suit, making Android phones more competitive with the iPhone.

minthd 12y ago

I think the basic idea here ,is for google to learn about the wireless industry from the inside out, and to start create the basics(brand, customer support,etc) needed for a big business in this field. That together with other technical innovations google is talking about could, in a later stage let google offer an attractive service - or push the carriers to do so, and thus lower wireless costs. As for what those technical stuff , few possible ideas: 1. A wifi bandwidth exchange, that could let wifi access point owners compete and charge for bandwidth, and that including monitoring and quality assuarance for customers. 2. Offering small business a wifi access point that includes some marketing incentives and free software(maybe POS, etc) in order to entice them to provide wifi bandwidth. 3. There are few companies offering wifi based backhauls at speeds of 300-1000 mbit/sec which could solve the access issues of those wifi access point providers. An alternative technology for this would be 60ghz smart antenna - and google bought alpental technologies, a startup that does this sort of thing. 4. Let phones support dynamic roaming based on price and quality. 5. I think in certain areas - like rural areas, google loon can play an important part. 6. Maybe with those changes, google can achieve a low enough bandwidth costs , that it could offer a basic plan for free - which will solve the marketing problem and subsidize with ads and selling extra bandwidth. But i'm leaning less towards the free plan, because google is interested in mobile video catching on.

benologist 12y ago
Your first point hinges on using existing infrastructure which even within the US is a questionable situation. Being at the mercy of the infrastructure, where it exists at all, greatly limits the value they can create - a project on Kickstarter could achieve the same result. I'm skeptical about your second point too as many businesses can afford internet connections, especially if there are any advantages to be had sharing them publicly. Your final point, it is hard to imagine google caring to offer western audiences free internet. This is a very incremental benefit to a modern country, something like 87% of the USA [1] may already be online. I think this is practice for doing it globally where internet can be very niche. [1] http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm
- deleted 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

wtallis 12y ago

If Google really wants to become a MVNO, then I don't understand why they haven't bought Republic Wireless yet. They had a chance at becoming the most vertically integrated carrier when they owned Motorola Mobility, and they've already got a relationship with Republic's parent company providing the back-end for Google Voice.

taeric 12y ago
I will add to this that Republic Wireless has been a mostly awesome experience. I am not even convinced the bad points have been their fault. Just some times when the bloody phone will not actually make a call for me. (I should note I log a ridiculously low number of hours on voice calls.)
ohsnap 12y ago
Google is more interested in solving the bandwidth cap problem. They want to deploy high speed municipal wifi to solve this. Unlike Republic, they are not looking to cut your monthly bill - Google wants people to consume more data, not less. Republic is more focused on cutting costs by providing a more efficient (but basic) service... which is a very different business.
- wtallis 12y ago
  There's still a ton of overlap in using WiFi to work around the limitations of cellular. Google won't want their customers using large amounts of cellular data any more than Republic does, because they'll have to face the same cost structure as a MVNO. Google's got a lot more money to throw around than Republic, but they're not going to spend it on subsidizing cellular data costs. They're going to use it on making WiFi offloading more broadly available, and thus they'll be every bit as focused on offloading as Republic. (And Google's in a great position to make sure that the WiFi that gets deployed actually works well enough to reliably support VoIP, which has been the biggest problem Republic faces.)
  - ohsnap 12y ago
    Yup huge technology overlap in offloading but I don't think Google really needs Republic's help there. But your right both are focused on making offloading as reliable and seamless as possible. Personally I think an independent Republic is the most interesting business because they have a lot of room to really drive prices down, something they couldn't do within Google.

jtwebman 12y ago

They are doing this so they can also be a telco company and then the phone companies have to allow them to use there polls to lay fiber, etc...

jt2190 12y ago

Not really the first thing I think of when I read "wireless service." From TFA: > The service would be small-scale and not intended to > compete with the big four national carriers... > Instead, it would be intended to demonstrate technical > innovations that the carriers could adopt.

lvs 12y ago
I suspect the idea might be to merge (and gang) service from multiple carriers and 802.11 more seamlessly than GSM "roaming" and current internet calling implementations, making use of the many available bands in modern radios.

AndrewDucker 12y ago

I strongly suspect that this is more about Google showing that "Better is possible." If people can look at a few places and see that it's possible to have affordable wireless service that makes a profit, then it might kick more municipal providers into delivering the service, and provide more competition for the big boys.

_RPM 12y ago

They're probably going to record and store all of the conversations that happen over their network.

inthewoods 12y ago

Maybe they're a buyer for T-Mobile or Sprint? Unlikely, yes.

strange_quark 12y ago
T-Mobile, maybe, but I doubt Google actually wants to be a wireless carrier. Sprint already has Softbank to bankroll them.

click170 12y ago

I like the idea of another wireless competitor but speaking only for myself, Ill be avoiding it just as much as I avoid Google search and gmail. I value my privacy and Google has built their business model around depriving me of it.

steven2012 12y ago

I hope no one is surprised by this. Once they started with Android, it was glaringly obvious that their eventual goal was to offer free mobile phone service with ads service.